The Ref Stop

MOT vs CEL

socal lurker said:
not a biggering offense.
Click to expand...
300full-officer-crabtree.jpg
 
The Ref Stop
I was so mad at this decision that I stopped myself from coming on here last night.

Hearts are chasing their first title in 66 years!
I am 40 years old and I WASN'T EVEN BORN the last time a non OF team won the SPL.
And two referees decided this "handball" was enough to scratch all of that.
I am appalled.
 
  • Like
Reactions: es1
LothianRef said:
I think this has highlighted an interesting contradiction in the wording of the handball law - although who is surprised by that 😜
It states that it’s a handball offence if a player handles the ball when their hand has made their body unnaturally bigger. However it then goes on to define “unnaturally bigger” as “not justifiable by their movement for that situation”.
In this instance, it’s unclear whether or not it hits the hand of the Motherwell player. Even if it does, his hand is positioned right in front of his head so it’s not made his body any bigger. Yet there’s also a reasonable argument that jumping with your hand in front of your head is not a natural way to jump.
Long and short of it, I’ve no idea and VAR should’ve stayed well clear.
Click to expand...

Doesn't the body include the head?

Try jumping upwards and not move your arms. Raising your arms is natural.
 
I can accept the Ars/WHU decision (reluctantly) but this was pretty awful all round. Definitely for C&O and I don’t know how you give a penalty for it on the footage/direction and pace if travel of the ball.

VAR has ruined football and made officials’ jobs even more impossible/thankless.
 
After Review........ yawn 🥱🥱🥱, 'maximum interference, no added value' 🥱🥱🥱
Final decision 🥱🥱🥱, 'nobody will be talking about the football... again 🥱🥱🥱
I was watching this game as it happens. This one just felt very wrong
Put yourself in a low IQ football supporter's mindset and you reach, 'conspiracy'. That's a very real and problematic issue with VAR involved
 
“the essential flow and emotions of football”, something IFAB wanted to safeguard, have been ripped to pieces by VAR. That is proven by every major game.

this is my major issue with VAR and those advocating for it - my second reaction on celebrating a goal is to check the ref, check the lino, wait for the 'checking VAR' announcement...

VAR as an idea in football could work...VAR as it's implemented at the moment is and always has been a disaster
 
The Gump said:
Great article in The Athletic that perfectly sums up where we've got to with VAR. The only solution is to get rid of it but, like the author, we all know that's not going to happen.

"VAR is broken. The furore at Motherwell, Tottenham and West Ham proved it"
Click to expand...
A while ago we had an 'honest discussion about VAR' thread and I stand by my suggestion to limit what is reviewable.

It would be better to only use VAR for:
  • Goal/no goal
  • Violent conduct
  • Biting or spitting
  • Penalty/no penalty all factual decisions (e.g. position of offence) and subjective decisions for VC, biting/spitting and DOGSO-Red
  • Mistaken identity
This would strike a better balance by removing VAR involvement in most penalty/no penalty subjective decisions, DOGSO outside the penalty area and SFP (unless/until there is a significant rewrite of Law 12 to make SFP less subjective).

In the recent incidents it would mean:
  • Neither Leeds or Tottenham would be awarded a penalty, Jarred Gillett would be solely accountable for such decisions
  • West Ham's goal would be disallowed but there would be no question about a penalty instead, unless Chris Kavanagh decided 'if it's not a goal then it's a penalty' before going to the screen
  • The non-offence in this game would not even have been reviewable
 
CaptainsPlease said:
A while ago we had an 'honest discussion about VAR' thread and I stand by my suggestion to limit what is reviewable.

It would be better to only use VAR for:
  • Goal/no goal
  • Violent conduct
  • Biting or spitting
  • Penalty/no penalty all factual decisions (e.g. position of offence) and subjective decisions for VC, biting/spitting and DOGSO-Red
  • Mistaken identity
This would strike a better balance by removing VAR involvement in most penalty/no penalty subjective decisions, DOGSO outside the penalty area and SFP (unless/until there is a significant rewrite of Law 12 to make SFP less subjective).

In the recent incidents it would mean:
  • Neither Leeds or Tottenham would be awarded a penalty, Jarred Gillett would be solely accountable for such decisions
  • West Ham's goal would be disallowed but there would be no question about a penalty instead, unless Chris Kavanagh decided 'if it's not a goal then it's a penalty' before going to the screen
  • The non-offence in this game would not even have been reviewable
Click to expand...
I think that would be a step in the right direction but the list doesn’t seem to include ‘the arm of god’ scenario like Maradona unless you are including that in goal/no goal (but I think you may mean GLT), which would then mean bringing in something for deliberate ‘clear’ deliberate handball or ‘deliberate clear penal offences’.
 
DavidObs said:
I think that would be a step in the right direction but the list doesn’t seem to include ‘the arm of god’ scenario like Maradona unless you are including that in goal/no goal (but I think you may mean GLT), which would then mean bringing in something for deliberate ‘clear’ deliberate handball or ‘deliberate clear penal offences’.
Click to expand...
To clarify I do mean any goal/no goal decision. Hence why West Ham's would still be disallowed. The most egregious incidents that led to calls for video review were for goals being wrongly awarded or not awarded.
 
The Gump said:
Great article in The Athletic that perfectly sums up where we've got to with VAR. The only solution is to get rid of it but, like the author, we all know that's not going to happen.

"VAR is broken. The furore at Motherwell, Tottenham and West Ham proved it"
Click to expand...
Yes, a good article and hard to argue against any of the points made

You could dredge up my posts from that World Cup (must have been 2018)
I was very alarmed by what I was seeing. It was a monumental change of direction... a truly historic knee-jerk, both in terms of the depth of change, but the haste with which it appeared. All backed up by very dubious FIFA and IFAB propaganda that was readily presenting something very disingenuous

It's not a boast or anything as I do get things wrong, but my tune has remained consistent since day one
VAR is disastrous for the game and it only exists because those who want it have some form of vested commercial interest, although I accept there's a dwindling minority of football people who still want it or think it could work in some radically different guise. I also accept that the can of worms would be extremely difficult to close. It was a very positive move by the Championship and EFL to bin it off recently and there's a couple of minor Leagues which have given it the elbow, but I can't see a way out for the elite game. They've totally and utterly screwed the game and I'm sometimes embarrassed to be known as a referee. That's an awful thing to say, given deep down, I think we all had some respect for those who took up the whistle back in the day
 
Big Cat said:
Yes, a good article and hard to argue against any of the points made

You could dredge up my posts from that World Cup (must have been 2018)
I was very alarmed by what I was seeing. It was a monumental change of direction... a truly historic knee-jerk, both in terms of the depth of change, but the haste with which it appeared. All backed up by very dubious FIFA and IFAB propaganda that was readily presenting something very disingenuous

It's not a boast or anything as I do get things wrong, but my tune has remained consistent since day one
VAR is disastrous for the game and it only exists because those who want it have some form of vested commercial interest, although I accept there's a dwindling minority of football people who still want it or think it could work in some radically different guise. I also accept that the can of worms would be extremely difficult to close. It was a very positive move by the Championship and EFL to bin it off recently and there's a couple of minor Leagues which have given it the elbow, but I can't see a way out for the elite game. They've totally and utterly screwed the game and I'm sometimes embarrassed to be known as a referee. That's an awful thing to say, given deep down, I think we all had some respect for those who took up the whistle back in the day
Click to expand...
I still have respect for Referees now since it’s more difficult now than it’s ever been & those on the PL are often much younger than those from yesteryear wherever it be from the 60s, 70’s, 80’s and since the inception of the PL in 1992. This means that although they are much fitter these days they haven’t had the same life experiences as those back then, which would have transferable skills to their Refereeing. Having said that the Referee in last night’s game at Bradford was extremely calm etc dealing with an altercation towards the end of the game in front of the Technical Areas (albeit not a PL game).
 
I'm at the point I couldn't care less about the decision made using VAR. You'll see on these threads people managing to justify any decision using clear and obvious criteria.

The real problem is the process. Just kills what football is meant to be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: es1
CaptainsPlease said:
A while ago we had an 'honest discussion about VAR' thread and I stand by my suggestion to limit what is reviewable.

It would be better to only use VAR for:
  • Goal/no goal
  • Violent conduct
  • Biting or spitting
  • Penalty/no penalty all factual decisions (e.g. position of offence) and subjective decisions for VC, biting/spitting and DOGSO-Red
  • Mistaken identity
This would strike a better balance by removing VAR involvement in most penalty/no penalty subjective decisions, DOGSO outside the penalty area and SFP (unless/until there is a significant rewrite of Law 12 to make SFP less subjective).

In the recent incidents it would mean:
  • Neither Leeds or Tottenham would be awarded a penalty, Jarred Gillett would be solely accountable for such decisions
  • West Ham's goal would be disallowed but there would be no question about a penalty instead, unless Chris Kavanagh decided 'if it's not a goal then it's a penalty' before going to the screen
  • The non-offence in this game would not even have been reviewable
Click to expand...
I thought that's what it would be brought in for, anyway. Just really clear and obvious things. And possibly off the ball incidents that the refs haven't seen. It's totally taken the enjoyment out of scoring a goal...when you have to wait 6 mins for them to review it, then possible disallow
 
That’s one of the best statements I’ve seen from the SFA in a long time. I get the impression from it that this has been building up for a while and (rightly) Wednesday night was the straw that broke the camel’s back. For example, Michael Stewart was banned by the SFA from Hampden for April’s Scottish Cup semi finals after his particularly vocal criticism of all things refereeing throughout this season.
 
ocj1998 said:

Scottish FA statement

www.scottishfa.co.uk www.scottishfa.co.uk
Click to expand...
Alas, this sort of thing is now more likely than ever. VAR fuels the hatred. I know it used to happen without VAR, but I've no doubt hatred towards referees is on the rise as they're more and more, the focus of attention
I've always maintained, VAR exacerbates controversy. Mistakes are no longer seen as 'human error'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top